Saturday, December 29, 2007

"From murder and intimidation, to the crass and the blasphemous, 2007 was a horrendous year of Christian bashing," said Dr. Gary L. Cass, Chairman and CEO of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission, the counter force to the liberal Jewish Anti-Defamation League.

"Anti-Christian sentiments are being fomented in the culture and are becoming more deadly and cynical," said Cass. "Impressionable young people are being swept up in anti-Christian hysteria, aided and abetted by a greedy, a-moral entertainment industry. Mocking Christians, blaspheming their faith and ridiculing their values has become the easy way for 'entertainers' to shock their way to the top."

"The Christian Anti-Defamation Commission (CADC) calls on anti-Christian politicians, Hollywood and New York media elites to stop the Christian bashing and take responsibility for the culture of hate towards Christians they have helped to create. The CADC will work aggressively to stop this dangerous and irresponsible Christian bashing in 2008."

To report an incident of anti-Christian bigotry or defamation, click here

1.) Colorado Church Murders-"You Christians brought this on yourselves I'm coming for EVERYONE soon and I WILL be armed to the @#%$ teeth and I WILL shoot to kill. . God, I can't wait till I can kill you people. Feel no remorse, no sense of shame, I don't care if I live or die."

2.) Federal Hate Crimes Bill--The 2007 Federal Hate Crimes Bill threatens religious liberties and lays the groundwork for "thought crime," which has no place in American law and violates the concept of equal protection under the law.

Wednesday, December 26, 2007

One of the biggest obstacles facing what's called the "New Atheism" is the issue of morality. Writers like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens have to convince people that morals and values are possible in a society that does not believe in God.

It is important to understand what is not in doubt: whether an individual atheist or agnostic can be a "good" person. Of course they can, just as a professing Christian can do bad things.

The issue is whether the secular worldview can provide a basis for a good society. Can it motivate and inspire people to be virtuous and generous?

...Being unable to account for human altruism is not enough for Sam Harris, author of Letter to a Christian Nation. In a recent debate with Rick Warren, he complained about Christians "contaminating" their altruistic deeds in places like Africa with "religious ideas" like "the divinity of Jesus." Instead of rejoicing at the alleviation of suffering, he frets over someone hearing the Gospel.

In response, Warren pointed out the inconvenient (for Harris, that is) truth: You won't find many atheists feeding the hungry and ministering to the sick in places like Africa or Mother Teresa's Calcutta.

About 300 current and former students of Capistrano Valley High School gathered at the school’s campus in Mission Viejo before dawn on Wednesday, Dec. 19, to support a history teacher accused in a federal lawsuit of attacking the Christian religion in the classroom.

Chad Farnan, a 16-year old Capistrano Valley High sophomore, and his parents filed suit against Dr. James Corbett in U.S. District Court in Santa Ana on Dec. 14. The lawsuit alleges that Corbett, an honors history teacher who has taught for 19 years, violated the First Amendment by expressing active hostility toward religion in the classroom. The suit alleges that Corbett spends a large portion of class time “propagating his personal views to a captive audience.”

The lawsuit seeks legal fees but does not ask for damages if the school district agrees to fire Corbett.

“While teaching the class, Dr. Corbett spends an extended period of time at the beginning of each class discussing topics that are not only irrelevant to history, but also inflammatory and often altogether inappropriate for high school students,” said a news release from Murrieta-based Advocates for Faith and Freedom, the legal group representing the Farnans. “Dr. Corbett causes students who hold religious beliefs to feel like second-class citizens because of their protected religious expression, beliefs, and conduct. He has gone as far as stating, ‘When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can’t see the truth.’ In addition to expressing his viewpoint regarding the Christian faith, Dr. Corbett has made derogatory remarks about Christian viewpoints regarding homosexuality, Viagra, birth control, and sexual activities of teenagers. As a result of Dr. Corbett’s hostility toward Christianity, Mr. Farnan has filed this federal lawsuit for a violation of his First Amendment rights.”

One has to wonder whether all those people would have shown up to support him if he had been bashing Islam or Judaism...

Oprah Winfrey, widely cited as one of the most influential and admired women in America, showed herself to be an agent of moral insanity when she featured a program celebrating young children who are seeking sex-change procedures and transgender identities. In one episode of "The Oprah Winfrey Show," the true nature of our modern sexual confusion was made clear, and the broadcast should long be remembered as one of the most frightening hours in television history.

The program, broadcast on Tuesday, August 24, began with Oprah introducing the children seeking a sex change. "This is going to be a very fascinating show, OK?" Oprah began. She then introduced her first young guest: "He is an 11-year-old child. He likes skateboarding and PlayStation. He listens to rap, studies hard, gets good grades and wears those trendy baggy pants. He was also born a girl."

Oprah then moved to the broader theme of her program. "And right now according to experts, there are thousands of children who are living what appear to be very normal lives but deep inside they know something is terribly wrong or they feel that something is terribly wrong, and these children are saying that they were born in the wrong bodies. Their parents have to decide whether or not to let their children live as the opposite sex. Eleven-year-old Kayla lived for years with this secret."

According to a video broadcast on the program, Kayla was born a girl in 1992, but her mother reported that "Kayla never played with girls' toys, never played with dolls. About two years of age on, Kayla was more into dirt and bikes . . . . she would pick out baggy pants, boxer underwear. She didn't like girls' underpants."

At some point, Kayla saw an episode of the Oprah show and was prompted to declare that she was now a boy. She told her mother that she believed she was a boy born into a girl's body. Her mother Angelina responded in a way that left Oprah nodding in approval. "My first reaction was basically blowing it off. A few days later, I said, 'OK, let's find out more about it'." As the show unfolded, the audience was told that Kayla, now "Kaden," was facing struggles at school. Early puberty presented additional challenges, so Angelina put her 11-year-old daughter on Depo-Provera.(What kind of doctor would put an 11 years old on Depo-Provera?)Kaden told Oprah's audience, "When I'm old enough to, I want to get testosterone and my surgery."

Talk radio host Michael Savage doesn't mince words. He often says that "liberalism is a mental disorder." He's right. Liberal ideology and political correctness, infused with public policy, begets social insanity.

Case in point: A recent report on a popular homosexual "news" site declares, "A transgendered student says he is the victim of discrimination at a small Massachusetts community college because he is biologically female."

Say what? "He" is "female"? Welcome to PC-ville. Come for the oxymoron, stay for the cognitive dissonance.

In other news, "French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte says he is the victim of discrimination because he is biologically Bob from Detroit."

Apparently, this clearly confused 20-year-old woman who "presents as a male and wears male clothing" is upset that Northern Essex Community College in Haverhill, Massachusetts, will not allow her to undress, shower or otherwise cavort with the fellows in the men's locker room. She's reportedly filed an "affirmative action complaint" against the school.Read the whole commentary.

You can't make this stuff up.

The problem is, as Matt so aptly goes on to point out, that we are all going to be legally forced to pretend this actually normal - unless we stand up and call it out for the nonsense it is...now.

The transgender movement is becoming quite powerful in the United States. Transgender is the 'T' in LGBT, (lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transgender) and whenever you see the words 'perceived gender,' you must understand that it refers to transgenderism. LGBT activists are demanding that our society be re-ordered around their delusions.

One outrageous and appalling example: Transgender activists have been put in charge of designing curriculum for public school children in Massachusettsand soon in California...

In other words, children as young as Kindergarten are going to be taught in public schools that transgenderism is perfectly normal.

Even Oprah, has become an powerful advocate for this insanity. In 2004, she featured a program celebrating young children who are seeking sex-change procedures and transgender identities. One of the children featured on her show was six years old...

The only explanation possible for this sort of depravity can be found in Romans 1:24:

If you have kids in the Poway Unified School District, you might want to simply assume there will be less money for instruction and classroom supplies in the years to come. Litigation is expensive, you see, and when you have a school board on a collision course with the U.S. Constitution, more litigation would seem pretty unavoidable.

Not that Poway is any stranger to being sued for stomping all over the rights of students who don't think the way the board majority thinks they should. The district has spent who knows how many tens of thousands of dollars (maybe more) defending itself in an ongoing lawsuit that arose when officials punished a student for wearing a T-shirt that read "Homosexuality is shameful."

Tyler Chase Harper wore that T-shirt in response to a pro-gay rights event at Poway High School, and was told to remove the shirt. He refused, and was ultimately suspended. The conservative Alliance Defense Fund and liberal American Civil Liberties Union are both asking the courts to overturn the suspension (although Harper is now long since graduated) as a violation of Harper's free speech rights and, presumably, to keep the district from behaving similarly in the future.

And yet, despite the ongoing lawsuit, which the district stands a good chance of losing, it is now (over)reacting to a spate of swastikas and nooses recently found on the district's campuses -- crafting new policies to crack down on "hate behavior."

Which sounds reasonable, I suppose, if we can all agree on just what constitutes "hate" -- and don't mind getting rid of the First Amendment's free speech clause while we're at it.

Tuesday, December 18, 2007

The t-shirt on the toddler is meant to be an attention-getter . . . and it is. A picture of the boy wearing the t-shirt appeared first in the Chicago Tribune but now also in The Times [London]. The t-shirt reads, "My daddy's name is Donor."

The T-shirt is offered by a company called Family Evolutions, founded by a lesbian couple whose son modelled the shirt. The co-founder, Stacey Harris, says that the T-shirt is empowering. "We want to lift the taboo surrounding donor conception so that kids don't feel that their coming into the world is a shameful secret," she says. "Kids who are empowered will grow up well-adjusted."

The "empowering" t-shirt is intended to mainstream the idea that the male agent in procreation now no longer deserves even a name. The sale of sperm is now so commonplace that it is now just one more consumer good -- and an increasing number of consumers are single women and lesbian couples who share an intention to have babies without a husband.

...This becomes all too clear when reports now indicate that a majority of those requesting and using Artificial Insemination by Donor [AID] are now single women and lesbian couples. A quick survey of the situation in major metropolitan areas will make that pretty clear. Sperm banks are now big business.

Monday, December 17, 2007

From "FIRST-PERSON: Is ‘bashing’ sub-Christian? Not necessarily" by Mark Coppenger, posted 12/26/07 at Baptist Press

EVANSTON, Ill. (BP)--Recently, my Apologetics in Contemporary Ministry class was turning through the premier issue of Salvo, published by the folks at Touchstone. Salvo is a hard-hitting publication, one designed to discomfit sub-Christian and anti-Christian ideologies arrayed against “the faith once for all delivered to the saints.”

The magazine featured some carefully crafted mock advertisements. One invited people to the “Church of Darwin.” Another parodied PETA with a pitch for PETI (“People for the Ethical Treatment of Insects”). Most of these ads performed the classic “reduction to absurdity,” drawing out the embarrassing implications of an opponents’ stance –- “If he had his way, look what sort of craziness he’d get us into!”

In the course of our discussion, a student said he would be reluctant to pass the magazine on to a non-believer since some of the material could be seen as “bashing,” so I asked whether “bashing” (as in “gay-bashing” and “Bush-bashing”) was a bad thing, per se. What was bashing anyway?

I took up the marker and began to write possible definitions on the board, trying a bit of the Socratic method. We started with something like, “To bash is to insult,” but that wasn’t automatically bad. Jesus did it without apology. (See for example, Luke 11:45, where it is clear He got a twofer, hitting both the Pharisees and the lawyers.) So we tried a refinement: “To bash is to attack someone personally, and not just his ideas.” But, again WWJD got in the way, for the Lord said His opponents, and not just their teachings, were like whitewashed tombs and serpents (Matthew 23:27, 33).

Okay, then maybe “to bash is to take a cheap shot?” But what’s a cheap shot? Is it a zinger without accompanying rationale? Is it disrespectful sarcasm? If so, must we apologize for Elijah’s sarcastic and caustic challenge to the prophets of Baal on Carmel, “Cry aloud, for he is a god. Either he is musing, or he is relieving himself, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened” (1 Kings 18:27). But it’s hard to call something “cheap” when it is saturated with truth, in Elijah’s case the truth of the emptiness and toxicity of idolatry.

But didn’t Paul say that, in our dealings with outsiders, our “speech [should] always be gracious, seasoned with salt” (Colossians 4:6)? Good point, but he prescribed salt, not sugar, and salt can sting a bit, as John the Baptist, the Apostles, and Jesus showed. Truth can hurt, but it can graciously make one free.

I then asked them why nobody ever criticized “racism-bashing” and “pedophilia-bashing...”

A YouTube video shows police monitoring a peaceful protest in a Chicago suburb who threatened to arrest a man that was not part of the protest because he was praying while walking his baby in a stroller on the sidewalk near a huge Planned Parenthood abortion facility.

Aurora resident Roger Earl was walking his baby and praying from a prayer book on November 17 when police confronted him and told him he couldn't be there.

"I wasn't planning to be part of the protest today," said Earl. "I didn't realize that I was breaking any law by walking along the sidewalk praying."

A pro-life worker has put a video on YouTube of Roger Earl talking with reporters after his confrontation with police officials.

The Philadelphia council of the Boy Scouts of America will lose the lease on its historic premises for its refusal to bow to pressure from the homosexual lobby to accept homosexual members and leaders. The city has told the Scouts they will be evicted if they cannot come up with US $200,000 a year "market value" rent for the land on which their building sits. Until now, the Scouts had paid a nominal $1 per year lease fee although the youth organisation had originally owned the premises in 1929.

The famous Beaux Arts style building was built and paid for by the Scouts, and turned over to the city with the understanding that the Scouts would be allowed to remain in it rent-free "in perpetuity."

City solicitor Romulo L. Diaz Jr. gave Philadelphia's "Cradle of Liberty Council" of the Scouts until Monday this week to renounce their policy. The Cradle of Liberty Council is the largest Scouts council in Pennsylvania and is the third largest in the entire Boy Scouts of America. The "City of Brotherly Love" has told the Scouts they have until June 1 to vacate their historic building.

..."This is an organization that has done more good for more children in this crime-ravaged city than most of the other so-called charitable groups in the City of Brotherly Love...At a time when this city is awash in blood, and we need as many safe havens for our children as possible, Philadelphia decides to go after an organization that is politically uncomfortable."

An editorial appearing in the online edition of Investor's Business Daily asked, "Isn't it hypocritical, though, to be intolerant in the name of tolerance, to say that it's wrong to disapprove of the lifestyles of others but OK to condemn the religious and moral beliefs of others?"

"How is it that an organization that has done immeasurable good for tens of millions of boys becomes one of America's most notorious and dangerous hate groups?"

Two homosexual groups plan to launch a national campaign targeting the most influential megachurches and its leaders in an attempt to change their views on gays and lesbians.

Soulforce, which promotes "pro-gay" interpretations of Scripture, and COLAGE (Children of Lesbians and Gays Everywhere) are currently recruiting LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) parents and their children along with other supporters for "The American Family Outing" in 2008. Selected families will visit six major megachurches to "educate" the public on the issue of homosexuality.

"Through our visibility we hope to peacefully challenge the false stereotypes about LGBT people and same-gender families, and educate the public through authentic and personal conversations - real parents sharing their stories and describing the hurtful effects of prejudice and religious condemnation," said a statement describing the national campaign, which will run from Mother's Day weekend in May through Father's Day weekend in June.

Churches being targeted are those led by Joel Osteen, Bishop T.D. Jakes, Dr. Rick Warren, Bishop Harry Jackson, Jr., Bill Hybels and Bishop Eddie Long. Along with most Christian leaders, all have expressed to some degree an opposition to the homosexual lifestyle.

Soulforce contends that these younger generation evangelical leaders "are striving to change the tone of the national political debate with messaging that is less punitive, therefore making religion-based discrimination seem more palatable to the mainstream American public."

The upcoming campaign comes at a time when more evangelical churches are showing compassion toward the homosexual community. While still rejecting homosexual behavior as sin, Christians are increasingly welcoming and loving homosexuals, departing from the hateful and homophobic labels often attached to churches.

Not wanting to become known as the town quack, I am reluctant to write another politically incorrect column about breast cancer.

Four weeks ago, when I reported a study that found a statistical link between abortion and breast cancer, the hate e-mail poured in, denouncing me for being an ignorant, stupid, anti-science, anti-choice and anti-woman lunatic. But it also brought a message alerting me to yet another study, suggesting that premenopausal women (younger than 50) who used oral contraceptives prior to having their first child faced a higher risk of breast cancer. Yes, I know, this debate has been going on for years, if not decades, and judging by the last studies given wide exposure a few years ago by the media, the issue seems settled: Oral contraception does not significantly increase the risk of breast cancer.

There's just one problem. According to an analysis in one of the most credible peer-reviewed journals in the country, the Mayo Clinic Proceedings, the risk is real. The study employed an often-used medical research technique called "meta-analysis" that allows researchers to combine data from other studies on the risk to get a larger picture. The result: Premenopausal women who used oral contraceptives prior to having their first child have a 44 percent higher chance of getting cancer than women who didn't use the pill. If they used the pill for more than four years prior to their first full-term pregnancy, the risk increased 52 percent. Chris Kahlenborn, an internist at the Altoona (Pa.) Hospital and the study's lead author, suggests one additional woman in 200 could get breast cancer. Extrapolated throughout the population, that could mean thousands more cases every year. I'd say that's an important story.

The reaction? Nearly total silence. Since it was published more than a year ago, I couldn't find a single reference to it in the archives of the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times or this paper. The Associated Press appears not to have covered it. I couldn't find a single mainstream media article about it in a Google search. But stories about other breast cancer risks were plentiful, including one about how sleeping with a night light on can increase your chances of getting breast cancer. The National Institute of Cancer doesn't mention the study on its Web site, but it did detail a 5-year-old study claiming to find no higher risk to pill use. The American Cancer Society also doesn't mention the study and concedes only that "it is still not clear what part" the pill plays in breast cancer. Such guidance, if not deceptive, is certainly incomplete.

The link between abortion and breast cancer and dementia and vasectomies makes one wonder if Catholics have had it right all along...

Monday, December 10, 2007

WASHINGTON - 'If human embryonic stem-cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough.'

-- James A. Thomson

A decade ago, Thomson was the first to isolate human embryonic stem cells. Last week, he (and Japan's Shinya Yamanaka) announced one of the great scientific breakthroughs since the discovery of DNA: an embryo-free way to produce genetically matched stem cells.Even a scientist who cares not a whit about the morality of embryo destruction will adopt this technique because it is so simple and powerful. The embryonic stem-cell debate is over.

That allows a bit of reflection on the storm that has raged ever since the August 2001 announcement of President Bush's stem-cell policy. The verdict is clear: Rarely has a president -- so vilified for a moral stance -- been so thoroughly vindicated.

Why? Precisely because he took a moral stance. Precisely because, as Thomson puts it, Bush was made "a little bit uncomfortable" by the implications of embryonic experimentation. Precisely because he therefore decided that some moral line had to be drawn.

In doing so, he invited unrelenting demagoguery by an unholy trinity of Democratic politicians, research scientists and patient advocates who insisted that anyone who would put any restriction on the destruction of human embryos could be acting only for reasons of cynical politics rooted in dogmatic religiosity -- a "moral ayatollah," as Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) so scornfully put it.

Leaders from three pro-family groups Wednesday called on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to denounce the Folsom Street Fair - which is called "the world's largest leather event" and is held each September in San Francisco - as a "grotesque affair" that violates laws prohibiting public nudity and child abuse.

"Because you frequently extol San Francisco's values to the rest of America, we are compelled to call your attention to what actually takes place" at the event, wrote Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth, in a letter he hand-delivered to Pelosi's office on Capitol Hill.

"I was in San Francisco with a videographer on Sunday, September 30, and verified but a small segment of the most immoral and outrageous sexual behavior that ever disgraced the streets of any American city," continued LaBarbera, whose group describes itself as "devoted exclusively to exposing and countering the homosexual activist agenda."

To support his perspective on the matter, LaBarbera released a six-minute DVD entitled "Tolerance Gone Wild in San Francisco" to members of the press during a news conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday.

The disc contained a number of sex-related visuals, including:

Large numbers of men walking on public streets either fully or partially naked;

Groups of men engaging in sex acts on the street as crowds walked by and snapped pictures and police officers merely watched;

"Master-slave relationships" in which a man or woman "walked" a subservient "slave" with a collar and chain;

Anti-Christian imagery in the form of the "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence" - men dressed in drag mocking Catholic nuns - greeting incoming attendees at Folsom; and

Young children with their parents witnessing the street scene.

Now it is tempting to write this off as an anomaly – an isolated manifestation of the fringe element – not truly representative of the gay ‘rights’ movement as a whole. However:

Fringe elements don’t get letters from the mayor warmly telling them to ‘Have a great day and enjoy their wonderful and exciting event.”

Fringe elements don’t have the pull to suspend laws for the day and force police to 'look the other way.'

Fringe elements don’t get large corporate sponsors like Miller beer and tax dollars from the city of San Francisco to underwrite their events.

Fringe elements don’t get to embarrass Speaker of the House by holding events like this in her district without a lot of political muscle…

It is clear that the supporters of this debacle have, not only descended into depravity, abandoning whatever moral judgement they may have once possessed, but they also have a frightening amount of political power.

The U.S. House and Senate agreed Thursday to drop the hate-crimes amendment from the 2008 Defense Authorization bill when it became clear the House was 40 votes shy of passing the bill if it included the controversial language.

The amendment sought to create a new federal class of crime based on "actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity." President Bush had pledged to veto the bill if it included hate-crimes language.

“This victory belongs to the concerned citizens who contacted their senators to oppose the hate-crimes bill,” said Ashley Horne, federal policy analyst for Focus on the Family Action. “We also want to thank the Senate leadership who worked hard behind the scenes to prevent this dangerous language from becoming law.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said House Democratic leaders will work with the Senate to “make certain” that a hate-crimes bill gets to the president’s desk.

Hate-crimes legislation doesn't go far enough, according to Focus Action Director of Digital Media Stuart Shepard. In his Stoplight video commentary, he suggests how a few additional laws could fill out the picture.

Friday, December 07, 2007

From "Homosexodus! Students flee forced 'gay' agenda" by Bob Unruh, posted 12/04/07Parents in California have started reacting to the state's newly mandated homosexual indoctrination program by pulling their children out of classes, and state Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell is warning districts they'll lose money if that happens.

As a result, spokeswoman Denise Kanter told WND that her group is sending out 5,000 DVD packages to churches around the state that include basic "how-to" information to provide parents a direction to turn when they choose to protect their children from the new school agenda.

The new law demands, "No teacher shall give instruction nor shall any school district sponsor any activity that promotes a discriminatory bias because of a characteristic [including perceived gender.]"

"With the passing of SB 777, a Christian parent cannot, in good conscience, send their child to a public school where their child will be taught or coerced into a lifestyle or belief system that is contrary to the faith they hold dear," Kanter told WND.

"Fortunately, SB 777 has caught the attention of many churches and pastors here in California, and as they should, they are calling on their congregants to take their children out. To help in this endeavor, our ministry has sent and will continue to send out free packages directly to churches containing information on how they can encourage their congregants to homeschool their children, as well as how to create in-church parent led schools," she said.

...Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for Children and Families, said there is reason for alarm. He said the new law effectively requires school instruction and school activities to portray homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality to the six million children in public schools in a positive light.

Wednesday, December 05, 2007

Five years ago in Alberta, Canada, a former pastor and head of a Christian organization, Stephen Boissoin, sent a letter to a local paper on the issue of sexual orientation. Two weeks later a gay teen was beaten up, and the pastor was charged withviolating human rights lawbecause the letter likely exposed gays to hatred and contempt - despite the fact that he had never advocated violence of any sort in his letter or otherwise.

The following is not intended for those who are suffering from an unwanted sexual identity crisis. For you, I have understanding, care, compassion and tolerance. I sympathize with you and offer you my love and fellowship. I prayerfully beseech you to seek help, and I assure you that your present enslavement to homosexuality can be remedied. Many outspoken, former homosexuals are free today.

Instead, this is aimed precisely at every individual that in any way supports the homosexual machine that has been mercilessly gaining ground in our society since the 1960s. I cannot pity you any longer and remain inactive. You have caused far too much damage.

My banner has now been raised and war has been declared so as to defend the precious sanctity of our innocent children and youth, that you so eagerly toil, day and night, to consume. With me stand the greatest weapons that you have encountered to date - God and the "Moral Majority." Know this, we will defeat you, then heal the damage that you have caused. Modern society has become dispassionate to the cause of righteousness. Many people are so apathetic and desensitized today that they cannot even accurately define the term "morality."

The masses have dug in and continue to excuse their failure to stand against horrendous atrocities such as the aggressive propagation of homo- and bisexuality. Inexcusable justifications such as, "I'm just not sure where the truth lies," or "If they don't affect me then I don't care what they do," abound from the lips of the quantifiable majority.

Face the facts, it is affecting you. Like it or not, every professing heterosexual is have their future aggressively chopped at the roots.

Edmund Burke's observation that, "All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing," has been confirmed time and time again. From kindergarten class on, our children, your grandchildren are being strategically targeted, psychologically abused and brainwashed by homosexual and pro-homosexual educators.

Our children are being victimized by repugnant and premeditated strategies, aimed at desensitizing and eventually recruiting our young into their camps. Think about it, children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights.

Your children are being warped into believing that same-sex families are acceptable; that men kissing men is appropriate.

Your teenagers are being instructed on how to perform so-called safe same gender oral and anal sex and at the same time being told that it is normal, natural and even productive. Will your child be the next victim that tests homosexuality positive?

Come on people, wake up! It's time to stand together and take whatever steps are necessary to reverse the wickedness that our lethargy has authorized to spawn. Where homosexuality flourishes, all manner of wickedness abounds.

Regardless of what you hear, the militant homosexual agenda isn't rooted in protecting homosexuals from "gay bashing." The agenda is clearly about homosexual activists that include, teachers, politicians, lawyers, Supreme Court judges, and God forbid, even so-called ministers, who are all determined to gain complete equality in our nation and even worse, our world.

Don't allow yourself to be deceived any longer. These activists are not morally upright citizens, concerned about the best interests of our society. They are perverse, self-centered and morally deprived individuals who are spreading their psychological disease into every area of our lives. Homosexual rights activists and those that defend them, are just as immoral as the pedophiles, drug dealers and pimps that plague our communities.

The homosexual agenda is not gaining ground because it is morally backed. It is gaining ground simply because you, Mr. and Mrs. Heterosexual, do nothing to stop it. It is only a matter of time before some of these morally bankrupt individuals such as those involved with NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Lovers Association, will achieve their goal to have sexual relations with children and assert that it is a matter of free choice and claim that we are intolerant bigots not to accept it.

If you are reading this and think that this is alarmist, then I simply ask you this: how bad do things have to become before you will get involved? It's time to start taking back what the enemy has taken from you. The safety and future of our children is at stake.

--Rev Stephen Boissoin

Priscilla Jael made the following observations:

This pastor has had to finance his own legal defense for the last five years.

The accusers bore no expense. He simply made an accusation and the government spent taxpayer money to prosecute him for SPEECH.

This is exactly the kind of 'hate crimes' legislation our U.S. Congressmen have attached to the Defense Bill hoping to get it enacted into law.

Our pastors need to consider, study, pray about, and answer as few questions:

If we are fined for preaching truth, do we pay the fine?

Do we pay it if the money will go directly to an anti-Christian group (like below)?

A comment by Clive:

This Boissoin case is another scary portent. The likelihood of many Christians being willing to endure jail when they can’t endure a colleague or friend’s hostile stare is slim to none. It’s curious that over the past four decades while churches have affirmed the need to avoid bold, direct expositions of the abominable nature of homosexual practice in order to avoid offending unbelievers in their midst, approval of homosexuality in the culture and apostasy in churches on this issue have grown.

And there's really no need for us to engage in icky cultural confrontations on homosexuality anyway: we can just leave any pesky legal impositions on religious or speech freedoms to our children and grandchildren to fix. After a lifetime of public school and entertainment industry indoctrination, I'm sure they'll be well-prepared to do battle with the scourge of homosexuality, attendant to which will be having their hard-earned tax dollars used to educate their kindergartners on the inherent nobility and righteousness of homosexuality and transgenderism.

Planned Parenthood really believes that 'medically-accurate information about sex and how to protect themselves from STDs" has been effective for our children against disease and devastation - despite the fact that, although we are swimming in condoms, STDs are now at an all time high among both teens and the American population at large...

In order to understand this you must understand that the people at Planned Parenthood base their opinion on the assumption that young people are 'going to do it anyway' - despite the fact that in days gone by, when society expected chastity from teens - most teens were chaste.

Chastity is quite simply seen as an unreasonable expectation by the people at Planned Parenthood - despite the obvious and profound benefits to both individuals and society - especially children. Here's the bottom line: once we made the mistake of allowing morality to be jettisoned from the discussion, even the catastrophic consequences of teen sex became an insufficient reason to promote abstinence.